Creation Museum: Monument to Ignorance

link to Kevin Padian's testimony:
http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/Padian/Padian_transcript.html

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• atheist
• creation
• museum
• christian
• monument
• ignorance

[gamesbok]

@WILLTHEWGMAN Your problem is to show that every possible situation was subject to ultravilot, and we both know you can't do that. Fox, who wasn't looking at open ocean exposed to radiation, did have experimental evidence. You don't like soup, and I can appreciate that, but everyone likes a mineral spa. Perhaps that will help you.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

@gamesbok

The concept of a primitive "thick soup"... is one of the most persistent ideas at the same time that is most strongly contraindicated by thermodynamic reasoning and by lack of experimental support... the primitive ocean was steadily irradiated with a relatively high dose of solar ultraviolet light.. A steady irradiation of a rather homogeneous solution results in degradative rather than synthetic reactions"

Fox/Dose Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life.

[gamesbok]

@WILLTHEWGMAN Well, a quick glance at the scientific literature, like for instance, 'Fox, S. W. and K. Dose (1977). Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life, Marcel Dekker, Inc. ' would seem to indicate you are either painfully ignorant or deliberately dishonest. It appears not only that it will happen, but that it must happen.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

@gamesbok

Intelligently designing something in a lab only proves that something can be intelligently designed. The odds of even one simple protein molecule forming by chance are 1 in 101 to the 13 power. Even if only 6 simple protein molecules are needed to form even very simple life that still means that it just will not happen by chance!

[toalazlo6]

@davidmas0 WOW you're fucking ignorant. Retard.

[TheFlyingmonkeyman7]

@gamesbok Did you really just say that all of mathematics is false? Have you ever read anything by Lee Strobel? I don't think any of that science supports evolution. I don't know where you got the figure "6", but you may want to check its credibility.

[gamesbok]

@WILLTHEWGMAN I know you're not too bright, but I thought even you could get a Frankenstein joke. In 1960 John Oro showed that the production of proteins in a primitive Earth is not only possible, but inevitable. How many proteins do we need for an evolving system? 6. Maths, yours is unjustifiable, is a branch of logic, not emperical science. In fact all Maths is tautology. Emperical science, all of it, supports evolution, and none of it contradicts evolution.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

Skepticism; the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics. Skepticism is the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain. You my friend "TheCuriousSkeptic" are the opposite of a Skeptic IS. You do not suspend judgment nor claim that true knowledge is uncertain, you do the very opposite! Change your name before someone rightfully calls you dishonest by your very claim in your self-named.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

@gamesbok

Tell me, what "non-living" mater did Eckard Wimmer's group use to "synthesize" RNA? The odds of even one simple protein molecule forming by chance are 1 in 101 to the 13 power and thousands of different proteins are needed to form even very simple life. Showing that RNA can be intelligently human designed from pre-existing protein is an argument for ID, not one for random evolution. Math does not lie, math is empirical unlike the evidence used for theory of evolution.